4.  The applicants, Mr Juliusz Tarnowski, Mr Marek Tarnowski and Mr Aleksander Tarnowski are siblings. They are Polish nationals who were born in 1929, 1932 and 1934 respectively and live in Kraków and Sopot.
5.  The applicants are heirs of the owner of plots of land and buildings, which constituted a property called “Końskie Wielkie – Pałac”. The property was expropriated by the State by virtue of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform and confiscated in January 1945.
6.  However, the relevant authorities failed to issue an appropriate administrative decision, declaring that the property had been subject to expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform.
7.  In 1965 the State Treasury's ownership over the property was entered in the land and mortgage register.
8.  On 16 July 1996 the applicants requested the Kielce Governor to issue a decision stating that the property “Końskie Wielkie – Pałac” should not have been subject to expropriation under section 2 § 1 (e) of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform.
9.  On 30 May 1997 the Kielce Governor dismissed the applicants' request, finding that the property had met the criteria for expropriation set out in the 1944 Decree. The applicants appealed on 21 June 1997.
10.  On 4 August 1999 the applicants complained about inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture.
11.  On 14 September 1999 the applicants lodged another complaint about inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture with the Supreme Administrative Court.
12.  On 8 December 1999 the Minister of Agriculture dismissed the applicants' appeal against the decision of the Kielce Governor of 30 May 1997.
13.  On 31 May 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the applicants' appeal against the Minister's decision, finding that the administrative authorities had erred in law in that they had failed to give persuasive grounds for their decisions. The court quashed the first- and the second‑instance decisions.
14.  On 1 July 2002 the applicants requested a stay of the proceedings since the Kielce Regional Court had resumed parallel civil proceedings (see 2. below). On 14 August 2002 the Kielce Governor refused to grant their request. On 28 August 2002 the applicants lodged an interlocutory appeal with the Minister of Agriculture.
15.  On 7 February 2003 the applicants lodged a complaint about inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. On 20 March 2003 the applicants lodged another complaint about inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture with the Supreme Administrative Court.
16.  On 6 November 2003 the Minister of Agriculture discontinued the appellate proceedings (concerning the applicants' request for the proceedings to be stayed) following the withdrawal of their interlocutory appeal.
17.  On 31 March 2005 the Kielce Governor discontinued the administrative proceedings on the merits of the applicants' case finding that the civil courts were competent to deal with it. The applicants appealed on 20 April 2005 to the Minister of Agriculture.
18.  On 5 June 2006 the Chamber of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative Court adopted a resolution on procedure to be followed in the examination of cases concerning claims for restitution of property expropriated on the basis of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform. The court ruled that the administrative authorities were competent to deal with such cases.
19.  On 30 June 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint about inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. On 7 September 2005 they withdrew their appeal, having regard to the resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraph 18 above).
20.  On 28 September 2005 the Minister upheld the decision of the Kielce Governor of 31 March 2005 by which the latter had discontinued the proceedings.
21.  On 23 June 2006 the applicants requested the Minister to re‑open the administrative proceedings. The proceedings were subsequently re‑opened on 11 July 2008.
22.  On 30 January 2009 the Świętokrzyski Governor gave a decision. He held that the provisions of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform were applicable to the Końskie Wielkie – Pałac property. The applicants appealed.
23.  On 23 April 2009 Mr Juliusz Tarnowski complained to the Regional Administrative Court about the Minister's failure to give a second‑instance decision on the merits of the case.
24.  On 18 May 2009 the Minister of Agriculture dismissed the applicants' appeal and upheld the contested decision of 30 January 2009.
25.  On 29 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court, having examined the applicants' complaint about the Minister's failure to act in the case, discontinued the proceedings, having found that the Minister had given his decision on 18 May 2009.
26.  On 30 November 2009 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court again allowed the applicants' appeal against the decision of 18 May 2009. That court quashed the first- and second‑instance decisions given in the applicants' case, finding that there were not in compliance with the applicable laws and that the authorities had failed to give persuasive grounds for them.
27.  On 3 March 2010 the Końskie Municipality and the Minister of Agruculture filed a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Administrative Court.
28.  The proceedings are currently pending before that court.
29.  On 16 July 1996 the applicants instituted civil proceedings for rectification of an entry in the land and mortgage register of the property concerned. They submitted that in the absence of a formal expropriation decision given in respect of that property they should be listed as owners.
30.  Hearings were held on 8 January and 9 April 1997. On 9 April 1997 the Kielce Regional Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the above administrative proceedings.
31.  On 15 April 1997 the Kielce Regional Court gave an interlocutory decision, securing the applicants' claims by entering a warning in the land and mortgage register as to the veracity of the entry about the State Treasury's ownership.
32.  On 18 April 2002, following the applicants' request, the Kielce Regional Court resumed the proceedings.
33.  On 8 January 2003 the Kielce Regional Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the administrative proceedings. The applicants lodged an interlocutory appeal on 19 February 2003. On 19 August 2003 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal.
34.  On 31 May 2005 the applicants requested the court to resume the proceedings as the administrative authorities had declared that the civil courts had been competent to deal with their case (see the decision of the Kielce Governor of 31 March 2005, paragraph 17 above). The court resumed the proceedings on a later date.
35.  On 25 January 2006 the Kielce Regional Court gave judgment in the applicants' favour ordering that their ownership be entered in the land and mortgage register. The applicants' opponents, the State Treasury and the Końskie Municipality, appealed against that decision.
36.  On 12 September 2006, following the State's Treasury request, the Cracow Court of Appeal stayed the appellate proceedings, having regard to the resolution given by the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraph 18 above). Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed.
37.  On 12 October 2010 the Kraków Court of Appeal discontinued the appellate proceedings, having regard to the fact that they had been stayed on 23 September 2009 and that the parties had not requested that they be resumed.
38.  On 8 March 2005 the applicant, Mr J. Tarnowski, lodged a complaint with the Cracow Court of Appeal under the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”) in the proceedings pending before the civil court (see paragraph 29‑37 above). The applicant claimed just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 1. He also requested the court to undertake relevant actions in order to expedite and resume the proceedings for rectification of the entry in the land and mortgage register.
39.  On 26 April 2005 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court found that the civil proceedings had been handled properly. The court referred to the fact that there had been no undue delay in the proceedings after the date of entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004. The court acknowledged that the proceedings had been stayed from 8 January 2003. However, in the Court's view, that delay had not been “unreasonable” within the meaning of the 2004 Act. It found that the applicant should have submitted a request to resume the proceedings following the delivery of the decision of the Kielce Governor of 31 March 2005.